Buckwheat wrote:Speak only if it is true, beneficial, and timely / done with respect. There is nothing wrong with being direct and to the point, but it is often used an an excuse for harsh speech. Often the most powerful argument shows great restraint.

--------------Dear BuckwheatThe truth got me in troubleI better post songs..movies..storiesPoems..Pali..dhamma..no more bubbleThe truth can be harsh..will land me in trouble

Well that is one way to misrepresent what happened, yawares.The truth is, what got you into trouble was your posting of hate speech.

“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.” - Cormac McCarthy, The Road

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.- Sutta Nipata 3.725

Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity." (SN 22.97)

alan wrote:Hi Jack. You know I respect you. I have a snappy mind, which produces direct points. I like to get directly to the heart of the matter.

With respect, I will repeat that this is a discussion forum--not a virtual meditation retreat. The purpose is to exchange ideas. Best way to do that, in my opinion, is to be direct.

Yeah, the feeling's mutual on the matter of respect. I know it ain't a meditation retreat Your way of addressing things has rarely if ever been an issue for me, so make no mistake about it that I'm not suggesting we all wrap our words up in soft woolen blankets and fluffy coats all the time. It's harsh and unbeneficial speech that I was crusading against.

"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form...feeling...perception...fabrications...consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity." (SN 22.97)

--------------Dear ManasI agree with youThe truth will always winJust like the problem I had with the EX-MONKThe acting-judge said that he knew me/saw my picture/read my posts tooThen he really knew that.... the EX-MONK was the one..... who was boo boo !!

Cittasanto wrote:Could you explain your argument against some occasions of being direct and to the point?

I'm not sure what you mean? If you want me to provide examples, then say "can you please provide examples"

If that's what you mean, my response is no. I'd rather not since the incidents that have caused me to speak up about this happened rather recently. They involved members I do not wish to get further off side with by dragging up something from the past. They chose to make the posts in question unviewable to general members, suggesting to me that they want to bury it and so it's not my place to discuss it publicly.

But you cannot tell me you haven't witnessed occasions where a member has been unnecessarily blunt. I have spoken to a member recently who was on the receiving end of it, and they felt upset.

I asked you to explain, how you do that is up to you, but do explain your specific objections. instead of the second guessing as to what I am requesting, which is allowing for your own description, examples (real or otherwise) and several other possibilities.However, from what you have said I could guess you are conflating being rude with being direct and to the point, which I have not seen being done by anyone else.

I'll reiterate what I said in my posts before (which for some reason you seem to think had a lack of clarity):

when the first half says

No it's not. Speaking directly to the point might help in many circumstances, but in others it just hurts people's feelings and leaves them dejected.

without any context for what you mean or the aspects you are against it is hard to understand your objection.and your later sentence does not clarify what you are specifically referring to.

Speaking directly to the point might help in many circumstances, but in others it just hurts people's feelings and leaves them dejected.The Buddha could do it with compassion, because he knew the mind of the interloper, and he knew that it was the most effective method of teaching him.

None of us have the Buddha's knowledge.

Sometimes speaking directly to the point does not fufill any of the following qualities:

"Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five?

"It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will.

It's really the curt and blunt incidents that I have a problem with, where other's feelings are disregarded, or perhaps more truthfully, not considered in the first place. If we really follow the Buddha's teachings, then we should aim to follow his advice on speech, as quoted above.

mettaJack

Are you a mind reader? do you know the mood I or others are in right now? because without the Buddhas knowledge your friend could have potentially been upset by nothing other than their own perceptions, not what the person was actually doing. But this is only one possibility, and without the context of what was actually said I am simply giving the benefit of the doubt. I remember a thread where anyone who disagreed was accused of harbouring ill-will... but that was just projection, not fact. And unless someone says "your a P71c4" or something similar there maybe some personal work to do on the listener/readers part.It is also worth noting the Buddha did reprimand people in quite harsh terms at times, so intent... are not always apparent to others, or the listener/reader, and people do the best they can.I will point you to the Christopher Hitchens Quote earlier for an example of what I mean, and do watch the video from about the 8min mark for equally relevant comments. However, unless someone is blatantly being rude it is unwise to assume people are writing with other than good intent, but again that is not the same as being, or having a style that is, direct and too the point.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion … ...He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.John Stuart Mill

Buckwheat wrote:Speak only if it is true, beneficial, and timely / done with respect. There is nothing wrong with being direct and to the point, but it is often used an an excuse for harsh speech. Often the most powerful argument shows great restraint.

--------------Dear BuckwheatThe truth got me in troubleI better post songs..movies..storiesPoems..Pali..dhamma..no more bubbleThe truth can be harsh..will land me in trouble

alan wrote:It may be useful to define "rude" in the context of a forum. My opinion: a personal insult or unprovoked confrontation. Badgering without a point. Thats about it, everything else is style.

Oh, one more thing--posting irrelevant music videos in the middle of an important discussion. Thats pure self indulgence, and a waste of everyone's time, which makes it rude.

Your opinions?

----------------Dear AlanEvery stores/malls in Texas Play songs all the time for customersAnd my posts NEVER force members to click At the song I attached...they are free.. not to clickSome members might love to listen to my song...they clicked

America is a unique country with free speech/writing, we love freedomDear Alan......I never tell you what to do with your postsIf you think you are perfect..here's a toast

yawares wrote:Dear BenWhich part of my post Showed HATE SPEECH..please show meI really want all members to read and judge meYou're big @DW..I know that you can bring back my post so members can see

May be the truth will help me...again!yawares

yawares,

Since you asked for it, I will re-post some of your post here so that everyone can see. Since that post was not appropriate and not nice, I don't think it will stay here permanently. The post you made below includes gross generalizations and condescending language. There are gay Buddhists and members here who are gay. No group should be generalized in such a negative way.

yawares wrote:Dear Members....here is my other close encounter with the third kind !!

My first job as a stewardess with Thai International Airways...once I flew with Adul, a homo who was a son of a powerful polititian..that was why he got the job! He looked ok.. nobody liked to talk to him..it was a short flight to Singapore, all crews stayed at Ladyhill Hotel...Adul happened to get a room next to mine.

Tep told me that Thai gays loved to solicit sex and very aggressive, a few times when he/friends sat in the movie-theatre, gay who sat next to him tried to touch his private part. Tep never likes homo-people!---------I think homo-people should never be ordained...most of them are vulgar..they will ruin the temples' reputation. I don't hate them but I sure never want to be friend with them.

yawares...my close encounter with the third kind indeed

That post as well as similar ones by you against gays was appropriately met with numerous reports and complaints. That is why we removed it.

What if you met a "vulgar" Latino person? Would you generalize all Latinos as vulgar and refuse to be their friend? This is why generalizations are totally inappropriate, especially when they are negative generalizations.